Are young-earth creationists irrational knuckle-brains?

Christianity and evolution really are in conflict

Published: 2 January 2010 (GMT+10)

There’s no room for fence-sitters in the “tug-of-war” between Christianity and evolution. One is either for or against (cf. Proverbs 12:17, Matthew 12:30, John 8:44–45)—there’s no room in the middle. (Photo istockphoto)

This week’s Feedback highlights two letters expressing strong disagreement with CMI’s stance on evolution. First was USA correspondent Sam W., whose letter is first printed in its entirety, then Lita Cosner responds point-by-point below. Then Antonio C., also of the USA, wrote a blunt paragraph, to which Gary Bates responds.

Sam W.: Dear Creation.com

I continue to be fascinated with this concept of young earth or creationism. I find it entirely irrational. Now, understand where I am coming from—I am a chemistry major and Doctor of Pharmacy student. I have enough of an understanding of science to understand and interpret the arguments for and against evolution. There are a few things that have been bothering me:

Proponents of creationism more often than not look for evidence to support an outcome or conclusion. This “fact-fitting” is disturbing and more akin to the methodology of a conspiracy theorist than an educated person. Science, often the target of creationists, weighs evidence and then forms a conclusion. Unlike “fact-fitting”, science is open to further elaboration as it seeks truth.

Where in the Bible is it stated that Christianity is to be based off of the Bible alone. Furthermore, what about the history of the Bible. The Bible was written once upon a time by human hand. It was not created and left for us to find. The Church was founded and then the bible was written.

Also, let’s say evolution is proved true, what would it matter? I have picked my brain and I can not find the conflict between Christianity and evolution. Contrary, my admiration and wonder with the natural world and all its processes strengthens my faith.

“Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.”—Albert Einstein

Seeking truth, finding religion, finding beauty, Cheers, Sam

Sam. W.: Dear Creation.com

I continue to be fascinated with this concept of young earth or creationism. I find it entirely irrational. Now, understand where I am coming from-I am a chemistry major and Doctor of Pharmacy student.

I have enough of an understanding of science to understand and interpret the arguments for and against evolution. There are a few things that have been bothering me—proponents of creationism more often than not look for evidence to support an outcome or conclusion. This “fact-fitting” is disturbing and more akin to the methodology of a conspiracy theorist than an educated person. Science, often the target of creationists, weighs evidence and then forms a conclusion. Unlike “fact-fitting” science is open to further elaboration as it seeks truth.

One would have thought that someone so advanced in his science education would have known that this is a tired old stereotype of science. The idea of the disinterested scientist is as mythological as the tooth fairy. Evolutionist scientists are just as biased for their view as creationists are, and fit the facts to their view. Some of the articles in our Science Questions and Answers page might also be relevant.

The idea of the disinterested scientist is as mythological as the tooth fairy.

Where in the Bible is it stated that Christianity is to be based off of the Bible alone.

People have written whole books on the subject of sola Scriptura, so forgive me if my answer doesn’t seem in-depth enough (see articles below for more information).

First, we believe that the Bible is God’s Word. This makes it uniquely reliable as a guide for belief and practice.

Second, we believe in what’s called the “sufficiency of Scripture.” This means that we don’t need any other guide for belief or practice, because the Bible has given us all the information we need. This does not mean that every possible situation has been covered in the Bible; rather, it means that the principles in the Bible can guide us in any situation.

Third, we believe in the “perspicuity of Scripture.” This means that Scripture was written to be understandable; we don’t need anyone to interpret Scripture for us. Now, this is one where we have to be careful, because Scripture was written to be understandable to people at the time the particular book was written. Since then, a lot of information about the biblical world has drifted out of common knowledge. Bible scholars research the cultural context of Scripture, among other things, and bring out the meaning of the text for laypeople. So study is still needed, but even today, most Scripture is readily understandable, to the point where a 5-year-old can understand the basics of salvation.

Furthermore, what about the history of the Bible. The Bible was written once upon a time by human hand. It was not created and left for us to find. The Church was founded and then the bible was written.

The Bible was written by humans. I get to see this very clearly myself when I study the New Testament in Greek; Paul’s style is very different from Matthew’s or Luke’s. Each author uses the expressions and grammatical constructions that are natural to him. But we also believe that Scripture is inspired by God. The Holy Spirit worked in cooperation with the mind of the human author, using the author’s own vocabulary and way of expressing himself, to ensure that the Scripture was entirely accurate and communicated what God wanted. So the Bible can truly be said to be authored by both God and humans, but the result was what God wanted.

Also, let’s say evolution is proved true, what would it matter? I have picked my brain and I can not find the conflict between Christianity and evolution.

Contrary, my admiration and wonder with the natural world and all its processes strengthens my faith.

The intricacy of things in the natural world is one of the things that convinced me that evolution couldn’t possibly be true. While creation is fallen, it still bears testimony to its Creator. Ph.D. chemist Jonathan Sarfati’s latest book, By Design, talks about many of the evidences of design in the natural world.

“Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.”—Albert Einstein

I am suggesting neither. The point at which we differ is whether science or the Bible (religion is a far too general term for this argument) will be our starting point when we are looking for truth.

Seeking truth, finding religion, finding beauty, Cheers, Sam

Sincerely,

Lita Cosner Information Officer Creation Ministries International

Photo istockphoto

Antonio C. Only the good Lord knows what he was doing when he handed out brains to you guys. Maybe you were near the end of the line, if not actually there … Seriously, one can believe in the fossil record and evolution and still be a faithful Christian. Maybe you guys think about religion the same way you think about politics—knuckle-brain like.

Thanks for your email. No, truly, because it actually inspires us to fight the good fight and hold to the authority of God’s Word instead of man’s fallible opinions. This is because your email did not proffer one example of how our interpretation of the fossil record is incorrect. You make an opinion but do not have any information to support it. Nor could you ever possibly know what our political views are. Such views are outside of our ministry mandate.

With regard to the fossil record, if you had done any proper research on our position on such things (like viewing some of the 7,000 plus articles on our website) you would realize that such evidence does not speak for itself, but is interpreted according to a set of presuppositions that one brings to the evidence. You are clearly displaying this trait, but seem unaware that you do so.

They can then engage in meaningful debate as opposed to cheap shot mudslinging

Your comments are not only insulting, but also not the fruit of one who claims to be a Christian (thereby adding doubt on the veracity of your statement anyway, so your comment on what defines a Christian could also be based upon ignorance). But such ignorance about the limits of scientific understanding with regard to historical or past events is probably not your fault because more than likely you have only ever been exposed to one particular interpretation of the facts due to your schooling. That’s why we are motivated in our efforts to be a good source of information and encourage people to revisit the evolutionary brainwashing they have been exposed to under the guise of “science”. Hopefully then they will learn “how” to think about the evidence, not just “what” to think, and also not just blithely accept sweeping assumptions. As such, and as is our experience, they can then engage in meaningful debate as opposed to cheap shot mudslinging, which is unfortunately what you displayed here.

Derek C. wrote: “This is an awesome website. As a Christian who’s finally just turning my life over to God (for good), I needed somewhere to look for answers when I had no one to ask.” Help keep the ‘awesome’ going! Support this site